Cited by 203Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Disinhibitory psychopathology and delay discounting in alcohol dependence: Personality and cognitive correlates.

Open access
Bobova, Lyuba, Finn, Peter R., Rickert, Martin E., Lucas, Jesolyn·2009·Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Increased discounting of delayed rewards may reflect a decision bias that contributes to excessive use of alcohol and more generally, to an impulsive, disinhibitory predisposition that is characterized by a preference for immediate over long-term rewards. The current study examined the association between delay discounting of rewards and the covariation among several types of disinhibitory problems that are often comorbid with alcohol dependence (AD). Lifetime problems with alcohol, marijuana, other drugs, childhood conduct disorder, and adult antisocial behavior were assessed in a sample of 426 young adults, 257 of whom had a lifetime diagnosis of AD. Higher delay discounting rates were associated with the covariation among all domains of disinhibitory problems and were not uniquely associated with any one domain. Higher delay discounting rates also were associated with lower intelligence, lower working memory capacity, and higher trait impulsivity. The results suggest that increased delay discounting of rewards may reflect aspects of a general vulnerability to externalizing, disinhibitory disorders.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0014503

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bobova, L., Finn, P. R., Rickert, M. E., & Lucas, J.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Venue
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2009
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
51-61
ISSN
  • 1064-1297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2293
OpenAlex
W2157654658
Cited by
203
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 18
FWCI
9.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA13650, T32 AA07642)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
delay discounting, alcoholism, impulsivity, trait impulsivity, working memory capacity, intelligence, childhood conduct disorder, antisocial behavior, cannabis use, externalizing disorders, decision bias, young adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcoholism, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Personality, Reward, Sex Characteristics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review